Yeah, I think the resolution is trash. It poses a false dichotomy, and it’s going to be terrible to debate. I wrote a topic overview on it if you want some ideas, but as far as the resolution goes, I’m not a huge fan.

Hi, I’m a debater from Wadsworth attending nationals in LD. Was wondering if a) there would be a post on the nats topic, and/or b) I could email my case to “Ace” just for feedback. it’s no problem if the answer is no 🙂 just wondering. Thank you 🙂

Congrats on making it to nationals! I won’t be putting up an analysis of the nats topic unfortunately. I also don’t review cases for folks who aren’t students of the academy because it would be unfair to the students. If you want to post arguments here, though, I’d be happy to discuss with you. Or if you’d like to do a camp or something to get you ready for nationals, go ahead and contact the academy. Thanks, and congrats again! 🙂

Currently my affirmative values justice with the criterion of human dignity, and my negative also values justice with the criterion of the social contract. On my affirmative the basic thesis is that to achieve justice, the universal good, one must have human dignity, and the best way to achieve dignity is through recognizing immigration as a human right. By recognizing immigration as a human right, one can right many wrongs prevalent all over the world that exist because immigration is not recognized as a human right (I discuss these in my contentions.) On the negative, I argue that justice can only be upheld if the state and its citizens uphold their social contract to each other, and that the affirmative infringes on the social contract. By recognizing immigration as a human right, which are rights much less restricted than other types of rights, the state is not able to close its borders to foreigners if it deems this necessary, though under the social contract the state has duties to promote the interests of its current citizens over noncitizens.

From the way you describe your cases, they seem fine, but they do seem pretty standard. The structure is solid, and the frameworks are good, but it isn’t anything remarkable. You’re going to run into a lot of different arguments at nationals, so you should be prepared for that.

For the affirmative, be sure to clearly define justice. What is the universal good? And why is it best achieved through human dignity? A universal good seems more like a utilitarian concept.

For the negative, your VC shouldn’t just be the “social contract.” Every society outside the state of nature has a social contract, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good one. You also shouldn’t admit that immigration is a “restricted” right, because that’s admitting that it is already some kind of right. You will also need to explain how open borders can harm a nation’s population.

Thanks for reading and posting, but we don’t do complete case and contention reviews here on the blog. That would be unfair to the students who pay for the Academy’s services. If you’d like to consider doing that, please get in touch using the website, and I’ll be happy to see how we can help.

If you’d like to post general ideas and thoughts here, I’d be happy to provide feedback like I’ve done for the others above, but reviewing the actual content of your case isn’t something I can offer. Thanks for understanding.

You should check out our fundamentals of debating post linked below; it has some good tips in there. My number one piece of advice is to learn, learn, learn. Read research articles, philosophical works, supreme court opinions, news stories, and whatever else you can think of. If you’re smarter than your opponents, they will have a much more difficult time beating you.

Hey, Ace I’m in the debate this year and need to know who you are the cause of your article about the United States Ought To Limit Qualify Immunity For Police Officers for my evidence cards all I really need to know it your qualifications because we are doing LD debate this year. Thankyou!

Hey Aryana, you can check the authors page for information about me. But, you really shouldn’t be using this blog as a source or warrant in your case. You should be utilizing research and actual scholarly work as your warrants.

In general, social contract theory is a section of political philosophy that deals with developing an understanding of the normative aspects of people agreeing to form a society. As people, we create society, government, and social institutions. We choose to do this, and in so doing, create a social contract which results in certain normative realities. Philosophers like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc… seek to investigate what those normative realities are and elucidate them.

As it pertains to value structures in LD, social contract theory is not a suitable value or value criterion. You must describe what exactly you’re trying to achieve with the social contract. What part of the normative discourse are you attempting to tackle? Legitimacy? Justice? Balance? There are a number of character aspects of a social contract which can make a suitable component of the value structure.

I’m made it past A-quals and headed towards league at South High, there’s a new LD topic- The United States ought to provide a universal basic income. I feel as if there are so many V and VC’s that can tie into this resolution, but I just don’t know where to start, or have as a “go-to” in other words. Some people say to just stick to the basics, or what you mainly know. Do you have any suggestions?